Krishnamurti - How is one to understand the totality of suffering?

LO61T12 - How is one to understand the totality of suffering?
London - 28 May 1961
Public Talk 12

0:01 This is J Krishnamurti’s twelfth public talk in London, 1961.

0:07 Krishnamurti: We have been considering since we met here about three weeks ago, or more, perhaps, what is necessary in a world that’s completely confused, destructive, where there are so many divisions between people, not only economically, but racially and religiously. There is a process of destruction going on, a degeneration, not only within society which is always there, but also in the individual. There is the wave of deterioration that always seems to be catching up with us. And considering the terrible suffering, not only physically, throughout the East, but also emotionally, psychologically, the tensions, the conflict, the squalor, the confusion; considering all this, it seems to me, a completely new mind is necessary, a totally new mind; not a reconditioned mind, not a mind brainwashed by the communists or by the capitalists or by the Christians or by the Hindus, but a totally new mind. 2:24 And that’s what we have been considering, how to bring about this new mind.

2:36 We have approached it from practically every point of view, outwardly and inwardly. The more we try to change the mind outwardly, through propaganda – which most religions are – or through economic, social pressure, the more the mind is conditioned, the more the mind is shallow, empty, dull, insensitive it becomes, which is, I think, fairly obvious to anyone who has at all observed these things. And such a mind that’s merely conditioned, influenced – however subtly, consciously or unconsciously – such a mind, it seems to me, is incapable of dealing with the problems that arise in modern civilization, utterly incapable.

4:00 And as most of us are also psychologically, inwardly so petty, narrow, ridden with information and knowledge, and we have so many psychological problems – the problems of relationship, the problems that arise in our daily lives, what to do and what not to do, what to believe and what not to believe, whom to follow and whom not to follow inwardly, the everlasting search for comfort and security, and the escape from suffering. 5:04 When one has gone into all that, in that realm, too, there is very little hope. So a new mind, the quality of a new mind is necessary. I’m not going to go into that this morning again, the whole process of how to bring about a new mind. I think it is possible, and it is essential, it is eminently desirable because whatever we touch now brings about a new problem.

6:05 So, as we were saying at the last discussion, a religious mind is necessary; that is, a mind that has purged itself of all beliefs, of all dogmas, that is capable of inward comprehension, an inward awareness which brings about a quiet mind, a still mind. And being inwardly quiet, there is an intense awareness of everything outside itself. Because it is quiet within, silent, has understood all the conflicts, frustrations, troubles, turmoils, suffering within itself, as it has understood, it becomes quiet, still, and because it is still, outwardly it becomes intensely active in the sense all the senses are vitally awake, capable of observing without any distortion, following every fact without giving it a bias.

7:54 So the religious mind is not only the mind that is capable of observing outward things clearly, logically, precisely, but a mind that is inwardly, through self-knowledge, through self-knowing, has become so still that it has its own movement. And we said what is the religious mind in the sense that a mind that is in a state of constant revolution; and to bring about in the world not a communist or a socialist, or a capitalist revolution – capitalists don’t generally want a revolution anyhow, but the others do, and their revolution is always economic, partial, not a thing, a total, whereas a religious mind brings about a total revolution, not only within but without. 9:21 And it is only the religious revolution that can solve the problems of human existence, and no other revolution. At least that’s what I say, what I think, what I feel.

9:52 And what has such a mind... what can such a mind do in this world? What can you and I, as two individuals, do in this monstrous world, mad world? I don’t know if you have ever thought about it. What can a religious mind do?

10:25 We have explained very clearly what is a religious mind – not a Christian mind, not a Hindu mind, or a Buddhist mind, or a mind that belongs to some tawdry sect, or some society with fantastic beliefs and ideas, but truly a religious mind which has inwardly perceived its own validity, the truth of its own perceptions without distortion, and is capable of logically, rationally, sanely thinking out the problems that arise and never giving root to any problem. 11:22 Because that brings conflict, doesn’t it? The moment there is a problem and that problem takes root in the mind, then there is conflict. And where there is conflict, there is the process of deterioration taking place, not only outwardly in the world of things but also inwardly in the world of ideas, in the world of feelings, in the world of affections.

12:07 So what can a religious mind do? Probably very little, because the world, the society is made up of people who are ambitious, greedy, acquisitive, who are easily influence-able, who belong, who believe, who have committed themselves to certain forms of thought and patterns of action. You can’t change them; you can only change them through influence, through propaganda, offer them more, whereas the religious mind is telling them to completely denude themselves inwardly of everything, because it’s only in freedom that one can find what is true, or if there is truth, or if there is God. 13:25 The believing mind never can find what is true or if there is a God; it’s only the free mind. And to be free, one must go through all the bondages the mind has imposed upon itself and the bondages which society has created round it. That’s an arduous task because it requires great penetration, not only outwardly but inwardly.

14:25 And, after all, most of us are concerned with suffering. We all suffer in different ways, physically, intellectually, or within the skin, inwardly. We are tortured and we torture ourselves; we know despair and hope, we know every form of fear; and in this vortex of conflict and contradictions, fulfilments and frustrations, longings, jealousies, hatreds, the mind is caught, and being caught, it suffers. And we know what suffering is, most of us – the suffering that death brings, the suffering of a mind that is insensitive, the suffering of a mind that is very rational, intellectual, clear. 16:07 It knows despair because it has torn everything to pieces and nothing is left. And such a mind suffers, and in suffering, it gives birth to various types of philosophies of despair. Or suffering makes us escape into various forms of beliefs, into various avenues of hope, reassurance, comfort, into patriotism, into politics, into intellectual, verbal argumentations and opinions, and there is always, to a suffering mind, there is always the church, organized, ready to receive, to make the mind dull by offering it comfort.

17:41 We all know this. The more we think about all this, the more intense the mind becomes, and there is no way out. Physically there is, you can take a pill, go to a doctor, do various forms of healing the organism. But apparently there is no way out of suffering except through escape. But escape makes the mind very dull. It may be sharp in its arguments, in its defensive processes, but the mind that escapes is always afraid. The thing to which it has escaped, it protects, and anything that you protect, possess, breeds obviously fear.

19:00 So suffering goes on. Consciously we may brush it aside, but unconsciously it is there, festering, rotting, but it’s there. And can one really be free from it, totally, completely? Because that’s a question which must be asked, and I think it is the right question, whether the mind can ever be free from suffering. Not how to be free from suffering, because the moment we ask that question how, we create a pattern of what to do and are caught in what to do, which is an avenue of escape, rather than facing the whole cause and effect of suffering. And I would like this morning, before we begin to discuss, to go into this question.

20:54 Suffering perverts the mind, distorts the mind. Suffering is not the way to truth, to reality, to God, or whatever name one likes to give it. We have ennobled suffering as inevitable, as necessary, that suffering brings understanding, and all the rest of it. The more intensely you suffer, the more you are eager to escape, or to create an illusion, or to find a way and therefore seek an escape. So it seems to me, for a healthy, sane mind, suffering must be understood and to be utterly free of it. And is it possible?

22:43 Now, how is one to understand the totality of suffering, not one type of suffering which you may be going through, but the totality of suffering? You...? I may be going through a particular form of suffering: my wife has left me; or you may be suffering because something else happened to you, so each of us wants to solve our suffering in a particular way, caught in a particular pattern. You’re ambitious and in the very fulfilment of that ambition, there is frustration and that brings suffering. 23:49 There is various forms of suffering. I am not talking of the forms of suffering but suffering as a whole, the totality of something. How does one comprehend or feel the whole? I hope I’m making my question clear. Because through the part one can never feel the whole. The spoke of a wheel is not the wheel, but to comprehend the whole of the wheel, then the part can be fitted in, then the part has significance, but if you pursue merely the one part, you will never feel the whole.

25:04 Now, how does one feel the whole? Am I making the question clear? You understand? To feel the whole of mankind – not as an Englishman feels the whole of mankind – to feel the whole earth, the beauty of the whole earth, not the English countryside only, which is lovely. To feel something as a whole, to feel love as a whole, not for my wife and for my children only, but the feeling of it, the total feeling of it. The total feeling of beauty, not within the frame on a wall of a picture, or the smile on a beautiful face, or the beauty in a flower or in a poem, but to feel the sense of beauty that is beyond all senses, beyond all words, beyond all expression, how does one feel it?

26:50 I don’t know if you ever asked that question, because we are so easily satisfied with the beauty of a picture on the wall, or the beauty of our own particular garden, or a particular tree in a field. How does one feel this entirety of the earth and the heavens, and the beauty of man, woman – you know? – the feeling of it?

27:43 I’m going to go into it, if you will kindly follow it. It may be rather difficult. Having put that question, let’s leave it aside for the moment. Let it boil, simmer, go on, but let’s approach it differently. A mind in conflict is not sensitive mind.

28:26 A mind that is in battle, at war with itself becomes dull, it’s not a sensitive mind. Now, what makes a mind sensitive? Not to one thing or to two things, but sensitive as a whole; not only sensitive to beauty but also sensitive to ugliness, to everything – what makes it? It’s only, surely, when there is no conflict; that is, when the mind is quiet within and is capable of observing everything with all its senses outwardly, and that can only take place when there is no conflict. 29:38 Now, what creates conflict? Not only the conflict of a mind which is terribly conscious of its own reasons, of its own knowledge, of its technical achievements, the outward mind, but also of the inward mind, the unconscious mind, where probably there is... it is at a boiling point all the time, if one is at all aware.

30:23 What creates conflict? Please, don’t answer it. This is not a psychological or analytical discussion because mere analysis and psychological investigation doesn’t solve the problem. Mere investigation, intellectual, verbal analysis may verbally show the causes of suffering, but we are talking of being totally free of suffering. So we must begin to inquire not only verbally, intellectually, but we must be able to experiment as we are discussing, talking, and experiencing what we are talking and not merely leave at the verbal level. What creates conflict? Obviously, the pull in different directions. A man who is completely committed to something – generally insane, unbalanced – he has no conflict; he is that. 32:25 A man who completely believes in something without doubt, without a question, with which he is completely identified, he has no conflict, he has no problem; he is that. That state is more or less an ill mind. And most of us would like to identify, commit ourselves to something so completely that there is no issue, further issue, because most of us don’t want a conflict, because we haven’t understood the whole process of conflict. We only want to avoid it. But, as I was pointing out, avoidance only breeds further misery.

33:35 So realizing all that, I’m asking myself and therefore putting the question to you also: what creates conflict? Not only the contradictory desires, the contradictory wills, contradictory fears, hopes and all... contradiction.

34:05 Now, why is there contradiction? Please, you are not listening, I hope, to my words. You are listening through my words to your own minds and hearts. You are using my words to look at yourself, and so the words which are being used is a door through which you are looking, you’re listening. So what creates conflict?

35:14 One of the causes of this conflict is that there is a centre, an ego, the self which is the residue of all memory, of all experience, of knowledge, and that centre either is trying to conform to the present, or absorb the present; the present being the today, the every moment of living in which is involved challenge and response. It is translating what it meets in terms of what it has known. 36:24 What it has known is all the contents of many thousand yesterdays, and with that, it tries to meet the present. And it modifies the present, and in the very process of modification, it has changed the present, and so it creates the future. And in this process of the past translating the present and so creating the future, the self, the ‘me’, the centre is caught; that’s what we are.

37:11 So the source of conflict is the experiencer and the thing which it is experiencing, isn’t it? When you say, ‘I love you’, or ‘I hate you’, there is always the division between you and the thing which you love or which you hate. As long as there is a division between the thinker and the thought, the experiencer and the thing experienced, the observer and the observed, as long as there is a division, a contradiction – and division is contradiction – there must be conflict. Now, can this division be bridged over? That when you... what you see, you are; what you feel, you are, not that you should be or should not be. You...?

39:16 Because let’s first be clear that as long as there is a division between the thinker and the thought, there must be conflict, because the thinker is trying to do something about the thought, trying to alter it, trying to modify it, trying to control it, trying to dominate it, trying to become good, bad, all the rest of it. As long as there is a division which breeds conflict, there must be this turmoil of human existence, not only within but without.

40:31 Now, is there a thinker apart from thought? You understand the question? Am I making the question clear? Is the thinker a separate entity, something sacred, something permanent apart from the thought, or there is only thought, which creates the thinker, because then thought can give to that permanency? You understand...? Thought is impermanent, is in a constant state of flux, and the mind doesn’t like to be in a state of flux. It wants to create something which will be permanent round... 41:46 in which it can be secure. So if there is no thought, there is no thinker. I don’t know if you have experimented with this, if you have thought at all along these lines, or investigated into the whole process of thinking and who is the thinker. Thought has said the thinker is supreme, the soul, the higher self, and has given to the thinker a permanent abode, but it’s still the result of thought.

42:45 So if one observes that fact, if one perceives that fact, then there is no centre.

42:57 Please, this is very difficult to merely verbally to state it; it’s very simple to state it, but to go into it, feel it, to experience it. I feel that is the source of conflict, the division between the thinker and thought. And this division creates conflict, and a mind in conflict cannot live – live in the highest sense of that word – totally.

43:53 I don’t know if you have not noticed the moment you have a very strong feeling, either of beauty or of ugliness, provoked or awakened by other... inwardly, in that state of intense feeling, there is no observer at the moment. The observer comes in only when that feeling has diminished. Then the whole process of memory comes in. Then we say, ‘I must have more of that feeling’. Then the conflict begins. So to see the truth of this... ah, what do we mean by seeing? 45:08 What is this process of seeing? How do we see? We are sitting up here. How do you see the person who is sitting up here? You not only see visually, but you’re also seeing intellectually. You’re seeing the person through your memory, through your like and dislike, through various forms and therefore you’re not seeing, are you? When you see something, you see without any of that. That is, to look at a flower without naming, without giving it a label – to look at it. 46:13 As when you hear something lovely – not the organized music, I’m not talking of that – just hearing a note in a forest of a bird and to listen to it with all your being. In the same way, when you see something, perceive. Now, if the mind is capable of perceiving that there is only experiencing and not the experiencer, see it, feel that, then you will see that conflict with all its miseries, hopes, defences, comes to an end.

47:40 That is, when you see the truth of something, the truth that conflict ceases only when there is no division between the observer and the observed, thought and the thinker, and when you actually experience that state, that is, when you are in that state of experiencing without rationalizing, without questioning, without bringing all the forces of memory into it, all the yesterdays into it, then conflict ceases. Then you’re following facts and not the division which the observer makes about the fact. You...?

48:57 The fact is I am stupid, dull, weary, bound to a stupid routine of daily existence – that’s a fact, but I don’t like it, so there is the division. I don’t like what I’m doing, I loathe it, it’s an ugly thing, so there’s a conflict set going, the mechanism of conflict, defence, escapes, and all the miseries it entails. But the fact is I don’t like it. The fact is an ugly thing: my life is shallow, empty, brutish, habit ridden – that’s a fact. Now, without creating conflict, in the sense division, can the mind follow the fact, follow all the routine, the habits, follow it, not try to alter it? 50:40 Now, to see the truth of that and to follow it is perception – the word I’m using, we’re using – and when the mind is so capable of following the fact, which is never still, which is never static, it’s moving, it’s a living thing, but the mind would like to make it static and therefore conflict. I love you, I must hold you, possess you, but you’re a living thing, you move, you change, you have your own being, and so there is conflict, and out of that comes suffering. And can the mind see the fact and follow it? Which means, really, the mind which is very active, alive, intense outwardly and very quiet inside. 52:12 A mind that is not quiet inside cannot follow a fact which is so rapid. And it’s only a mind that is capable of this process, of this following every fact as it presents itself all the time and not say the fact should be or should not be, the division and the conflict and the misery, it’s only such a mind that cuts at the root of all suffering.

53:05 Then you will see, if you have gone that far – not far in space and time – if that has been understood, then you will see the mind comes to a state when it is completely alone.

53:36 You know, for most of us, to be alone is a dreadful thing. To be alone – you know? – not lonely; lonely is a different thing. Alone: to walk alone, to be alone with somebody or with the world, to be alone with a fact, alone in the sense uninfluenced. A mind that is no longer caught in yesterday; a mind that has no future; a mind that is really alone, uninfluenced, no longer seeking, no longer afraid – alone. 54:38 A thing that is pure is alone. It is only such a mind that knows love because it is no longer caught in problems of conflict and misery and fulfilment. It is only such a mind that’s a new mind, that’s the religious mind. And perhaps it’s only such a mind that can heal the wounds of this chaotic world. It’s nearly twelve. Can we discuss, or care to discuss?

56:07 Questioner: Would you tell us a little more of what love is?

56:12 K: The question is, would you tell us more of what love is. Now, there are two things involved in this. There’s a verbal definition, according to the dictionary, which is not love. The word ‘love’ is not love, any more than the word ‘tree’ is the tree; that’s one thing. In that is involved all the symbols, the words, the ideas about love, obviously. The other is that you can find love only through negation, discover it, which means that to find out, the mind must be free from the slavery of words, slavery of ideas, slavery of symbols. 57:51 That is, to find out it must wipe away everything that it has known about love. Mustn’t you wipe everything away of the known in order to find the unknown? Mustn’t you wipe away all your ideas, however noble, however lovely, all the tradition, everything away, to find what God is, if there is a God? And God or that immensity must be unknowable, not measurable by the mind. So the process of measurement, comparison, the process of recognition must completely be cut away to find out; the known must be wiped away from the mind.

59:11 In the same way, to know, to experience, to feel what love is – not by the mind, but to feel it, to be with it, not as a division or through division, to feel it, the mind must be free to find out, which means the things, the respectability of that word, the implications of that word: the sinful love and the godly love, the love that is respectable, the love that is unholy, all the rest of the social edicts and sanctions and the taboos which we have put round that word. And to do it, really to do it, is a tremendously arduous work, isn’t it, to love a communist, to love death. 1:00:47 And love isn’t something opposite to hate because what is opposite is part of the opposite. To love this brutality that’s going on in the world, the brutality of the rich, the powerful; to see somebody in the Rolls Royce go by and to be happy with that person. You try it sometime and you’ll see. And to love requires a mind that’s always cleansing itself of the things that it has known, experienced, collected, gathered, attached itself to. So there is no description of that word; there is only the feeling of that word and the wholeness of that word.

1:02:21 Q: In other words, in that moment one is love.

1:02:30 K: The question is asked, ‘In other words, in that moment one is love’. Oh, I’m afraid not. There is no moment at that moment. There is no process of recognizing that you are that. Haven’t you been angry? Hm? You have, haven’t you? Hating somebody? At that moment, do you say, ‘I am that’? There is no moment, is there? You are that completely, consumed.

1:03:20 Q: Sir, would you not say that Christ taught us, in his words, ‘Love thy neighbour as thyself’... understanding means love?

1:03:36 K: You see, sir... The question is, Christ has taught us to love the neighbour as yourself. You see, I hope I can put it and you’ll not misunderstand it. I’m sorry if you misunderstand it. To find out what is true, there is no authority, there is no teacher, there is no follower. The authority of the book, the authority of the prophet, the authority of the saviour, the authority of a guru must completely, totally come to an end to find out how to love the neighbour. There is no teaching, and if there is a teaching and you’re following it, the teaching has ceased to be. What is the difference between the dictator and the priest who is full of power and authority?

1:04:58 Q: None.

1:05:00 K: Sir, do... it’s no good answering me. That was not a rhetorical question. But we have all authorities: the authority of the professor who knows, the authority of the doctor, the authority of the policeman, the authority of the priest, or the authority of our own experience. To see where authority is evil requires an intelligent mind, and to eschew authority is quite arduous. To perceive the totality of authority, not just see series of authority; to see the whole of it and see the evilness of it, evilness of power, whether in the politician or in the priest or in the book or your own authority, over a wife and the husband, and all that... 1:06:18 power, to see the evilness of it, and when you see it, really see it, feel it completely, then you’re not a follower. And it is the mind that does not follow, it is only such a mind that is capable of discovering what is true, because it’s the mind that is free that can follow... that can pursue the fact. And to pursue a fact, you need no authority. To pursue the fact that we hate. We are afraid to pursue it. You don’t want authority; you want a mind that is free from fear, opinion, that doesn’t condemn. 1:07:34 All this requires hard work. I mean by hard work, not disciplined work, but to listen to something lovely or evil without distorting it. To live with something beautiful or ugly requires intense energy.

1:08:09 To live with something beautiful – I don’t know if you have noticed it – have you noticed the villager, the mountaineer who lives with a magnificent mountain? He doesn’t even see it, he’s got used to it. But to live with a mountain or with an ugly thing, oh, one has to be so intense, one has to have such energy. And this energy comes only when the mind is free, when there is no fear, when there is no authority.

1:08:53 Q: Krishnaji, you said that only a mind which is cleansed will arrive at that quietness and feeling. Is the process of cleansing a process of thought?

1:09:13 K: The lady asks: is the process of cleansing a process of thought. Is thought clean? Can thought ever be clean? Is not all thought unclean? Because thought is born out of memory, it’s a response to memory. Thought has already been contaminated; however logical, however rational it may be, it is contaminated. Surely that’s... Ah? It is mechanical, therefore there is no such thing as pure thought, or thought being free. Now, to see the fact of that demands a going into the whole problem of memory, which is mechanical, and to follow it. 1:10:37 And when you see the truth of it, that thought can never be pure, however much we try to make it, try to say, ‘I must concentrate on Jesus, on Buddha, or somebody’, and try to contain thought, it’s still impure, contaminated by yesterday. And to see the fact of that; the seeing the fact of it is the purity of the mind, not thought can make the mind pure. Seeing the fact that thought cannot make the mind pure, out of that perception the mind is pure. This requires, please... this... 1:11:36 You may listen to it for a few seconds and say, ‘Yes, I think I see or don’t see’. It’s not a matter of agreement or disagreement, but to live it, to go after it as you go after your money, position, authority, power, to go after it, to find out, put your teeth into it, and out of that comes a marvellous mind, purged, innocent, fresh, a thing that is new and so is in a state of creation and therefore revolution.

1:12:24 Q: Krishnaji... At the moment of perception of ‘what is’, will you tell us what happens to ‘what is’, which goes on...?

1:12:39 K: The question is, What happens when you perceive ‘what is’. Do you really want to know my description of it? I can give you a description, but will that help? Look, the fact is we hate. That’s a fact. We’re jealous, envious – that’s a fact. Now, when you don’t condemn it, when there’s no division between saying, ‘I am afraid, I am jealous’, no division, then what happens? Now, what creates division? First of all, the word. The word ‘jealousy’ is in itself separative, surely; the word itself is condemnatory. 1:13:47 Like love is not condemnatory, it’s a good word. Hate has within it the sense of condemnation. And to see the truth that the mind is a slave to words and therefore you’re no longer looking at the fact with words. Hm? I hope you’re... Because the word separates, the word is the invention of the mind caught in knowledge of centuries and therefore incapable of looking at the fact without the word. And when the mind can look at the fact without condemnation, which means without the word, then the feeling is not the word; the feeling. 1:15:07 Now, wait a minute. Take the word ‘beauty’. I mean, you all purr when that word is mentioned. And to most of us, beauty is the beauty of the senses – again, descriptive. ‘He’s a nice looking man’, ‘ugly building’ – comparative. ‘I must be more beautiful, less this and more...’ always the word ‘beauty’ is, we feel through senses, through the manifested, in the sense a picture, a tree, a sky, a star, a river, a person.

1:16:03 Now, is there beauty without the word, without the thing of the senses, a thing beyond the words, beyond the senses? If you ask an artist, he says, ‘Without the expression there is not, or there is with the expression’, and so on and so on and so on. But to find out what beauty is, the immensity of it, the total-ness of it, there must be the quickening of the senses and not the dulling of the senses, and going beyond the things that we have known as beauty and the ugly. I don’t know if you’re following what I mean. It doesn’t matter. Similarly, to follow a fact. 1:17:21 What happens when you follow a fact? One can follow it instantly and be... the mind, free of it, like jealousy, instantly. It can, if one gives attention. I have explained; I won’t go into that now, what attention is; not concentration. When one sees the fact, the very perception, the instant you see it, jealousy is gone, gone totally. But we don’t want the total disappearance of jealousy. We like it. We have been trained to love it, to live with it. We say, ‘If there is no jealousy, we don’t know what love is’.

1:18:37 So to follow something, to follow a fact requires – you know? – watching. And what happens after watching? No... What happens as you’re watching is more important than the end result. You...? What happens as you’re watching is much more significant than to be free of the fact.

1:19:20 Q: Can there be thinking without memory?

1:19:24 K: I’m afraid this has to be the last question because it’s twenty past twelve. Can there be thinking without memory. Is there thought without word? You know, it’s very interesting if you go into it. Is the speaker using thought? Thought as word is communication, isn’t it? The speaker has to use the words, English words, to communicate with you who understand English. So word is the... comes out of memory, obviously. But from what source, or what is the background of that word? I don’t know if I... You know, let me put it round the other way. Can you stand all this?

1:20:45 Q: Yes.

1:20:50 K: You don’t work, and I... the speaker works. Bene.

1:20:59 There is a drum, it gives out tone. When you strike it, when the skin is tightly stretched and right tension, it gives the right tone. The tone you recognize. But to the drum, which is empty, in right tension, is like your mind. When there is the right tension, right attention and when you ask the right question, then it gives right answer. The answer may be in terms of the recognizable, the words, but the thing out of which it comes out is emptiness. 1:22:01 I don’t know... That is creation, surely. Thing that is created out of knowledge is not... is mechanical. The thing that comes out of emptiness, the thing that comes out of the unknown, that is creation, the state of creation. Note: Krishnamurti ended his talk by saying, ‘It is kind of you to have listened to these talks and I hope we shall meet again another time’.

🢁